Michael Mahoney made one of those requests. He was convicted of selling drugs to an undercover officer back in 1984, went to prison, got out and went on to build a new life for himself.

But he bought a gun for protection, not understanding he couldn't have one as a convicted felon. When he reported the weapon stolen, Mahoney was sent back to prison on a mandatory 15-year sentence. Behind bars, he started getting sick: hepatitis C, then non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, with tumors growing everywhere.

"He just wanted to come on home and eat barbecue and, you know, die at home, be in his own bed," says his older sister, Dixie Taylor.

I think our system failed him when he was able to buy a gun, despite not being able to have one. Unless he bought it illegally (I'm not clicking through, so if that is answered there, that changes it.) He should have known he wasn't allowed to have a gun, but he should also, legally, have never been able to acquire one if the gun dealer did the background checks, right?

So all that punishment and no compassion despite the fact he never victimized anyone. There is no reason to separate him from society, and I would not mind one bit if he lived next door to me. His punishment should have been fines only.

Remember that bureaucrats exists only to say No. It's a nice sinecure. You get into your U.S. Sentencing Commission office every day, review the petitions, and stamp No on each and every one. Then you go home.

I'll bet many people in that office are earning more than $100K annually -- before benefits.

People out on parole, on supervised release, or on the sex offender registry can be sent back to prison for the smallest of "offenses." If a sex offender is late registering, back to prison. I read a personal account of a sex offender out on supervised release, unable to live in his own home with his wife because the house was too close to a school (California). So the wife lived in the house, the man slept in their car. He was allowed to come to the house for two hours at a time, once every 12 hours. He came home for those two hours so he could recharge his GPS monitor. He had to park in parking lots that serviced multiple businesses because he isn't allowed to park in, say, the Home Depot parking lot because it is for only Home Depot, not multiple businesses. So he sleeps in his car in strip mall parking lots.

One day, he spent the two hours in his house and then waited outside in the car for his wife to come out so he could take her to work. His probation officer nailed him for staying too long at one address, and it looks like he will go back to prison.

We put people in prison, label them "felon" or "sex offender", and then expect them to live with onerous restrictions when they come out. This guy was in prison to begin with for selling drugs, not a violent offense. He should be allowed to have a gun. And he most certainly shouldn't be sent back for fifteen freakin' years for trying to protect himself.

The Bureau of Prisons has a policy of placing prisoners within 500 miles of family, to make it easier for family to visit but I have heard from many family members who are 800, 900, 1500 miles away from the prison. The BOP runs things their way and it seems they answer to nobody.

A federal bureaucracy will soon be running our health care system so saying "no" will be pretty easy. What many people fail to see (or choose to ignore) about government run agencies is that civil servants value not getting in trouble above all else (by a long shot) and that means not rocking the boat or taking chances.

I like redemption. Once you serve your sanction, you should be redeemed as a citizen. You should be able to vote, and enjoy all the other rights of citizenship, including the right to own a gun. And you should have a fresh start.

I don't like "parole," this idea that we're doing you a favor. Parole is liberal horseshit. You make the sanction for crime tough, so when people commit a crime, they have to pay for it. But when they atone--and by atonement I mean they have served their sentence--it's time to forgive them and make them whole.

I'm fully confident that NPR is giving us the whole story, and isn't trying to spin things and withhold pertinent information to make law enforcement look as bad as possible.

I have natural questions from skimming the article. Like why a dying, infirm man would need two men to guard him 24/7 while his legs and arms were handcuffed to a bed. If any of that is true, it doesn't make sense. My gut says to call b.s. on the story.

MadisonMan said... Remember that bureaucrats exists only to say No. It's a nice sinecure. You get into your U.S. Sentencing Commission office every day, review the petitions, and stamp No on each and every one. Then you go home.

For a bureaucrat, saying 'no' is far safer than saying 'yes.' If you approve something and it ends badly, you'll look bad. Not that anything bad ever happens when government employees screw up (see: NASA Challenger and Columbia), but it might hurt promotion chances or even require an early retirement. So, denying approval for a new drug is safer than approving it, and denying parole is safer than approving it.

prairiewind, The BOP really does try and abide the 500 mile rule. However, if your family lives in certain parts of the country it's geographically impossible. And, inmates are classified a custody status, minimum-supermax. The higher your risk, the less facilities there are for you. Prison officials like inmates to have family visitors, it tends to make them less angry...depending on the family, of course.

I have natural questions from skimming the article. Like why a dying, infirm man would need two men to guard him 24/7 while his legs and arms were handcuffed to a bed. If any of that is true, it doesn't make sense. My gut says to call b.s. on the story.

MY gut says to call BS on the BOP, because "not making sense" is the way they work.

I should note that I'm not a drug war guy, and I think we should do more to help people become productive post-prison. On the other hand, there's an odor in this story of the old '80s liberalism, of which one of the distinguishing features was that all the compassion was reserved for criminals, and none for their victims and other law-abiding citizens who wanted to be protected from gun-toting drug dealers.

There's a balance to be struck, but I don't think there's much balance in the reporting of this story.

On June 6, 1986, murderer Willie Horton was released as part of a weekend furlough program but did not return. On April 3, 1987 in Oxon Hill, Maryland, Horton twice raped a local woman after pistol-whipping, knifing, binding, and gagging her fiancé. He then stole the car belonging to the man he had assaulted. He was later shot and captured ... On October 20, Horton was sentenced in Maryland to two consecutive life terms plus 85 years. The sentencing judge ... refused to return Horton to Massachusetts, saying, "I'm not prepared to take the chance that Mr. Horton might again be furloughed or otherwise released. This man should never draw a breath of free air again."

Democratic Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis was the governor of Massachusetts at the time of Horton's release, and while he did not start the furlough program, he had supported it as a method of criminal rehabilitation.

I agree with fivewheels. I have no reason to think we are being given all of the facts and knowing that the dominant media culture in our country is to promote feelings over reason, it would not surprise me if this turned out to be yet another case of the MSM promoting a narrative that fits their views.

We let people out early for good behavior. So in theory I'd be ok with letting people out who are about to die. But it shouldn't e that easy to get done and should be limited to people who are nonviolent. Plus, it shouldn't be THAT easy to do.

I think our system failed him when he was able to buy a gun, despite not being able to have one. Unless he bought it illegally (I'm not clicking through, so if that is answered there, that changes it.) He should have known he wasn't allowed to have a gun, but he should also, legally, have never been able to acquire one if the gun dealer did the background checks, right?

If he attempted to buy from a FFL-holding dealer, then he should have failed the NICS check.

If he bought in a private-party sale, the seller committed the crime of selling to a convicted felon. And the buyer committed the crime of felon-in-possession once he took possession of the gun.

However, since there is no law requiring any sort of background check for private-party sales. There is also no method allowing non-FFL-holders to get access to the NICS. (Some FFLs will, for a fee, handle the background-check portion of a sale.)

Since the article doesn't say anything other than "he bought a gun for protection", I'm assuming that he purchased from some other gun-owner in a private-party sale.

Guy gets caught with meth. Government agrees to let him off if he'll inform on a dealer. Afraid to inform on an actual dealer, he convinced someone at his workplace (and it took a LOT of convincing) to do a deal. Then he turned the guy in. The man who was convinced and convicted had a wife and a family. Now he sits in the state prison, and the original guy is free. Pretty horrible.

I was responding to FH's idea that SOME felons could use a gun for personal protection, and she gave an example of a former felon who definitely has made at least one enemy. My point is that in his case there shouldn't be a carved out exception because he needs to be protected from his enemy. You pay your dollar, you takes your chances in that case. IMO.

As to whether convicted felons in general should be allowed to buy or own guns, I already said what my impression of many such felons is based on my experience working with them (see above comment). That said, I'd be in favor or case by case exceptions or possibly allowing certain classes of felons to own guns.

I like redemption. Once you serve your sanction, you should be redeemed as a citizen. You should be able to vote, and enjoy all the other rights of citizenship, including the right to own a gun. And you should have a fresh start.

Agreed! Also agreed as to your further comments on parole. If we (as a society) think a crime merits a particular punishment, then fine; but stipulating the punishment and then adding piles of conditions on top of it, as has been done to "sex offenders" in particular, is odious. There are now "sex offenders" who have served their sentences but cannot actually live anywhere short of the middle of nowhere or (literally, in a recent case) under a bridge, because everywhere else is too close to a school, a park, or any number of other "no-go zones." The tale prairie wind tells here is depressingly commonplace.

Oh, I ain't lookin' to beat ya up but rather just trying to better understand your POV.

I just fail to understand why someone should lose a basic constitutional right for the rest of their life. If the concern is that these former-criminals will become violent then shouldn't they have remained locked up for life?

Pretty reasonable point. It's not that difficult to go through life without intentionally violating the law. However with the insane number of laws on the books can anyone say with absolute certainty they haven't inadvertently violated a number of laws?

If the concern is that these former-criminals will become violent then shouldn't they have remained locked up for life?

Many (not all) of these former criminals ARE violent, or they at least have violent inclinations and violent personalities. You don't spend a lot of time in prison learning to be a better person. You can't keep someone locked up for life just because they failed to be rehabilitated. And you can't put every armed robber in jail for life. That should be obvious. But I don't necessarily want them getting guns when they're sprung.

Oh you mean like the guy who made a video and was put in jail because of a "parole violation?"

I'm not sure what you're talking about...do you?

I didn't notice you defending his rights there penguin guy.

I've never noticed you defending anyone's rights before. Then again, I guess I could just say I've never noticed you before and leave it at that.

Sounds like you have an axe to personally grind with me...what other name(s) might I know you by?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Many (not all) of these former criminals ARE violent, or they at least have violent inclinations and violent personalities.

Then those individuals should remain locked up.

You can't keep someone locked up for life just because they failed to be rehabilitated.

I strongly disagree. If someone is considered so violent/dangerous that they must have their basic rights stripped away for the rest of their life, then they should remain locked up until those violent tendencies are curbed.

As it stands now, even non-violent offenders lose their second amendment rights for life. What is the logic behind that?

I strongly disagree. If someone is considered so violent/dangerous that they must have their basic rights stripped away for the rest of their life, then they should remain locked up until those violent tendencies are curbed.

By what mechanism could we imprison a violent offender for ten or fifteen years, and then at the end of his/her sentence say "Sorry you can't be released because you're still a damn scary individual."

You can't. But you can, and properly should IMO, prevent them from owning guns.

But I gather you are in favor of allowing any and all ex-felons access to any arsenal that the rest of us are able to constitutionally enjoy. I disagree.

"If he bought in a private-party sale, the seller committed the crime of selling to a convicted felon"

Not necessarily. The seller needs to have known, or be in the position of should-have-known, that the buyer was ineligible. There is neither requirement nor any mechanism for the seller to do so (e.g. I, as a private party, have no means to access the NICS system.) Lots of people like to require the purchaser to show a concealed weapons permit, but the most you can say is that's better than nothing. Here in WA permits are good for 4 years, and there's little your local Law Enforcement authority can do if your permit is revoked other than ask you to return it. ("Sorry, guys, I lost it." And I can't imagine any judge signing a tear-your-whole-house-apart warrant just so officers can look for your now-ineligible permit.)

"Like why a dying, infirm man would need two men to guard him 24/7 while his legs and arms were handcuffed to a bed. If any of that is true, it doesn't make sense. My gut says to call b.s. on the story."

It's how it's done. I had a family member serving time in a Fed minimum security women's prison in Illinois for a white collar crime, bank and wire fraud. She was let out to attend her father's funeral. She was cuffed till just prior to entering the church and guarded by three marshals. They shadowed her closely and even entered the restroom stall with her.

By what mechanism could we imprison a violent offender for ten or fifteen years, and then at the end of his/her sentence say "Sorry you can't be released because you're still a damn scary individual."

By what mechanism should we release violent people back into society?

If someone is too "scary" to be allowed their basic constitutional rights, then why are they being allowed to walk among society in the first place?

But you can, and properly should IMO, prevent them from owning guns.

I totally understand that you are in favor of stripping their second ammendment rights for the rest of their life, but I'm curious to know if you support criminals losing other basic rights for life as well.

One such example: voting. Some states allow felons (once they are off of paper) to vote, while others ban 'em from doing so for life. Which do you think is the better way?

But I gather you are in favor of allowing any and all ex-felons access to any arsenal that the rest of us are able to constitutionally enjoy

You gather incorrectly and I appreciate the chance to clarify.

I'm saying that it is improper to label any and all felons as so dangerous that they must have basic constitutional rights stripped from 'em for the rest of their life...especially given how many non-violent crimes result in felony charges.

I'm also saying that if an individual is considered too violent to possess a firearm then they are too violent to be walking around free.

If someone is too "scary" to be allowed their basic constitutional rights, then why are they being allowed to walk among society in the first place?

The criminal justice system does this all the time. Violent people are released because they have done their time and haven't acted on their violent impulses. If you do your ten years, twenty years, AFAIK there is no psych test give before you are released. Extremely violent people are released from prison every day into our communities because there is no legal remedy to prevent that. Can you propose one?

Because if you don't, and you allow ALL ex-convicts the right to own guns, you are going to have a lot of legally armed bad guys out there.

I'm in favor of allowing all ex-convicts the right to vote. As I said I'm also open to letting some classes of felons the right to own or buy firearms. I definitely don't have a problem restricting certain classes of felons from owning firearms.

And I can live with it if people who feel as you do win the day and all felons are allowed to buy and guns. I'm just not sure you know what you would be getting all of us into.

Don't we already have that situation? Ex-cons convicted of violent crimes can buy guns. Not legally, but they can buy guns. So we already have ex-cons walking around with guns.

One of the things the current gun restriction on felons do is that they allow law enforcement to tag some really bad guys on the gun law. The Mahoney case isn't right because allegedly the guy's been an upstanding citizen. But a lot of these creeps are involved in bad stuff while remaining untouchable. The gun laws make them touchable.

I know we are all supposed to admire the the feds for finally bringing down Al Capone on tax law violations but wouldn't you rather law enforcement do a better job? I don't want guys like Mahoney sent back to prison for having a gun...just because someone wanted a law to make the untouchable more conveniently touchable.

While the world is quite certain that Casey Anthony killed her daughter, the fact is that the prosecution could not prove it. So they lose, as they should. Laws like Caylee's Law, where we could have nailed Casey Anthony for something if only this law had been in effect, are rotten laws. They are written with a vague idea that they will come in handy at some point to catch the un-catchable bad guy and in the meantime, other folks like Mahoney get tripped up by the crazy laws.

I understand the rising tide of opinion from both sides against my position.

I would only add that IMO the majority of felons being released from prison are, while often well-intentioned, very dangerous individuals who are being released into an environment where their prospects for employment and decent housing are slim to none. Many of these people are already hardened and angry. They will in a lot of cases be very very suprised and to learn how little support they will get when they are released. Make it okay for them to own a gun and you will have a very volatile situation on your hand in many instances.

If you want to advocate for ex-prisoner's rights, I suggest greater spending (ha!) and support for them when they return to society, including subsidized employment and training opportunities. Many of these people badly need counseling as well. Getting bent out of shape because they are disenfranchised from their 2nd amendment rights does them practically little good. Advocating for jobs, training, counseling and a little compassion would probably be better IMO.

I would only add that IMO the majority of felons being released from prison are, while often well-intentioned, very dangerous individuals who are being released into an environment where their prospects for employment and decent housing are slim to none. Many of these people are already hardened and angry. They will in a lot of cases be very very suprised and to learn how little support they will get when they are released. Make it okay for them to own a gun and you will have a very volatile situation on your hand in many instances.

If you want to advocate for ex-prisoner's rights, I suggest greater spending (ha!) and support for them when they return to society, including subsidized employment and training opportunities. Many of these people badly need counseling as well. Getting bent out of shape because they are disenfranchised from their 2nd amendment rights does them practically little good. Advocating for jobs, training, counseling and a little compassion would probably be better IMO.

phx, you are correct about the unfriendly, unwelcoming environment for felons.

Instead of spending more money on ex-cons, how about if we incarcerate fewer people? Let's stop putting people in prison for non-violent crimes. Then we would have fewer after-incarceration problems to worry about. And that spending you talk about...private spending or government spending? Private, please. The government already has its fingers in too many pies and in too many pockets.

You say the majority of felons released from prisons are "very dangerous" people. Do you have numbers to back that up?

They went from having very liberal drug policies to their current very repressive policies. Their level of drug use is now lower than that in other European countries and North America.

Sweden's culture is totally different from our own though. They look at the state differently, and they place a high value on social conformity. People here may place a high value on social conformity within their groups, but we're split into groups that value entirely different things. In my town, you could take, say, only white males in their thirties, and you'd be able to divide them into groups that each wanted to conform to different ideals.

Here we have lots of illicit drug use and lots of violent crime associated with the drug trade. Sweden doesn't have either.

Here we have lots of illicit drug use and lots of violent crime associated with the drug trade. Sweden doesn't have either.

Not sure that's correct.

You should read some of the popular Nordic noir novels, like those of Jo Nesbo; they show a Sweden with a large drug sub-culture, a lot of drug-related crime, and a growing unassimilated immigrant population. All of it causing problems with that "ideal" Sweden we all remember from around 40 years ago or so.